5 ms·

I can't disagree more. Crypto is a new market that should have a different set of rules, based on new technology, and what is happening now, not in 1933. > No

I can't disagree more. Crypto is a new market that should have a different set of rules, based on new technology, and what is happening now, not in 1933. > Now it should be possible to invest in highly speculative, risky things - sure - that should be up to you This is literally all I'm asking.

jollybean 5y ago
"This is literally all I'm asking.:" You're asking to defraud people. (i.e. invest in things that are securities, but without having to follow the securities regulations). Sorry, but no. This is not a matter of just 'risk' to you - you are allowed to take on as much risk as you want - you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want. As long as it's not a scam. 'We' (i.e. everyone else) does not want 'you' putting money in giant scam vehicles, they're toxic to a functioning market. If you want to sell/buy/participate in a market for something that is like a security, then it has to follow securities regulations. If you want to sell a drug that says that 'it cures cancer' - it has to be approved. If you want to sell a car, it has to pass safety checks. If you don't want to do those things, then you can go a place like Afghanistan to see how it works out. FYI even the Taliban (!) are trying to fight against fraud because they know it's bad. There is no advantage to to society to skip these regulations. The only advantage to cheating on the regulations, is for early movers, to leverage themselves over dupes in an otherwise zero-sum game. There are opportunities for things that transcend regulation but we don't have any examples of that quite yet. For example, 'some future crypto' (not BTC or ETH) might provide the possibility for less oversight etc..
- thebean11 5y ago
  > you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want How is this not a contradictory statement? Are you claiming that anybody can become an accredited investor? That's incorrect, you need to be pretty damn close to the 1% to qualify.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    > To be an accredited investor, a person must have an annual income exceeding $200,000 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp 2018 Annual Wages Group Wages Top 0.1% of Earners - $2,808,104 Top 1% of Earners - $737,697 Top 5% of Earners - $309,348 Top 10% of Earners - $158,002 (formatting changed to work on HN) from https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
    - thebean11 5y ago
      TIL, that's higher than I thought. My overall point still stands though, between 90% and 95% do not qualify..
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  > You're asking to defraud people. I'm asking for people to have choice. > This is not a matter of just 'risk' to you - you are allowed to take on as much risk as you want - you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want. This is not true. As an accredited investor in the US, I cannot invest in any crypto that I want to due to domestic restrictions. FWIW, I'm not against regulation, I just find it funny that we think laws from 1933 are applicable to any technology released in the future. That seems completely absurd to me. I think crypto should have its own set of regulations. I'm not against the SEC going after specific scams, I think they should do that, but I think people should have choice of what they invest in.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    >> You're asking to defraud people. > I'm asking for people to have choice. ...which is exactly what opens the door to people being defrauded. Can you explain how this is different to requiring approval for new drugs or medical devices? Fwiw, if you are arguing for a review of how existing laws should apply to crypto, I'm fully on board. But that's not what Coinbase is trying to do at all. They are trying everything in their might to circumvent all of it.
    - hackingforfun 5y ago
      > Fwiw, if you are arguing for a review of how existing laws should apply to crypto, I'm fully on board. Yes, I think we are on the same page. I don't think crypto should be, or it is even possible to be, the wild west, indefinitely. Something should be in place, but we should have some clarity, and it would be great if the organization coming up with the laws understands the technology at a technical level. Gary Gensler seems promising, but time will tell.
      - airstrike 5y ago
        Come up with an actual proposal that isn't "deregulate it all because 1930s laws don't apply" and people might listen to you. Until then, bona fide intentions to "evolve" regulation are virtually impossible to tell apart from fraudulent intentions and most of us can't be bothered to spend the time or effort to engage in such a fruitless exercise.

jollybean 5y ago

"This is literally all I'm asking.:" You're asking to defraud people. (i.e. invest in things that are securities, but without having to follow the securities regulations). Sorry, but no. This is not a matter of just 'risk' to you - you are allowed to take on as much risk as you want - you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want. As long as it's not a scam. 'We' (i.e. everyone else) does not want 'you' putting money in giant scam vehicles, they're toxic to a functioning market. If you want to sell/buy/participate in a market for something that is like a security, then it has to follow securities regulations. If you want to sell a drug that says that 'it cures cancer' - it has to be approved. If you want to sell a car, it has to pass safety checks. If you don't want to do those things, then you can go a place like Afghanistan to see how it works out. FYI even the Taliban (!) are trying to fight against fraud because they know it's bad. There is no advantage to to society to skip these regulations. The only advantage to cheating on the regulations, is for early movers, to leverage themselves over dupes in an otherwise zero-sum game. There are opportunities for things that transcend regulation but we don't have any examples of that quite yet. For example, 'some future crypto' (not BTC or ETH) might provide the possibility for less oversight etc..

thebean11 5y ago
> you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want How is this not a contradictory statement? Are you claiming that anybody can become an accredited investor? That's incorrect, you need to be pretty damn close to the 1% to qualify.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  > To be an accredited investor, a person must have an annual income exceeding $200,000 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accreditedinvestor.asp 2018 Annual Wages Group Wages Top 0.1% of Earners - $2,808,104 Top 1% of Earners - $737,697 Top 5% of Earners - $309,348 Top 10% of Earners - $158,002 (formatting changed to work on HN) from https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
  - thebean11 5y ago
    TIL, that's higher than I thought. My overall point still stands though, between 90% and 95% do not qualify..
hackingforfun 5y ago
> You're asking to defraud people. I'm asking for people to have choice. > This is not a matter of just 'risk' to you - you are allowed to take on as much risk as you want - you may need to be an accredited investor, sure, but you can still take on risk and invest in whatever you want. This is not true. As an accredited investor in the US, I cannot invest in any crypto that I want to due to domestic restrictions. FWIW, I'm not against regulation, I just find it funny that we think laws from 1933 are applicable to any technology released in the future. That seems completely absurd to me. I think crypto should have its own set of regulations. I'm not against the SEC going after specific scams, I think they should do that, but I think people should have choice of what they invest in.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  >> You're asking to defraud people. > I'm asking for people to have choice. ...which is exactly what opens the door to people being defrauded. Can you explain how this is different to requiring approval for new drugs or medical devices? Fwiw, if you are arguing for a review of how existing laws should apply to crypto, I'm fully on board. But that's not what Coinbase is trying to do at all. They are trying everything in their might to circumvent all of it.
  - hackingforfun 5y ago
    > Fwiw, if you are arguing for a review of how existing laws should apply to crypto, I'm fully on board. Yes, I think we are on the same page. I don't think crypto should be, or it is even possible to be, the wild west, indefinitely. Something should be in place, but we should have some clarity, and it would be great if the organization coming up with the laws understands the technology at a technical level. Gary Gensler seems promising, but time will tell.
    - airstrike 5y ago
      Come up with an actual proposal that isn't "deregulate it all because 1930s laws don't apply" and people might listen to you. Until then, bona fide intentions to "evolve" regulation are virtually impossible to tell apart from fraudulent intentions and most of us can't be bothered to spend the time or effort to engage in such a fruitless exercise.